Sentencing after probation revocation; Effect of the lack of a comprehensively updated presentence investigation report (PSIR); People v Odom; Operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI)

The court held that defendant was not entitled to resentencing because while the trial court did not receive some information via an updated PSIR when it sentenced him after revoking his probation, it nevertheless had the information. Thus, the court affirmed his 24-month sentence and the denial of his motion for resentencing. He was convicted of OWI, third offense and initially sentenced to 36 months’ probation. But he repeatedly violated the terms of his probation, leading the trial court to revoke it and impose the prison sentence. He contended “that he should be resentenced because the trial court did not consider his PSIR at his resentencing and did not order a reasonably updated PSIR for his resentencing.” The court noted that if “a defendant is resentenced, the trial court ‘is to utilize an updated [PSIR].’” This rule likewise “applies to ‘sentencing after revocation of probation.’” But the court further noted that “the lack of a comprehensively updated PSIR does not necessarily entitle a defendant to resentencing.” It found this case similar to Odom in that “the trial court had before it all the information that was relevant to defendant’s sentencing.” He asserted on appeal “that an updated PSIR would have informed the trial court about [his] ‘abstention from alcohol while on probation,’ that he never tested positive for alcohol while on probation, that he completed a total of 150 days on a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor, that he was attending AA and NA classes, that he was completing community service, and that he had plans of moving to Texas.” However, the record showed that all “this information was presented to the trial court through other means, namely a report drafted by defendant’s probation agent, statements made by that agent at defendant’s resentencing hearing, and statements made by both defendant and his attorney at the resentencing hearing.”